CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES

The Teaching of Mathematics

Edward Balls: On 10 July 2007, I announced that Sir Peter Williams had agreed to undertake a review of the teaching of mathematics in early years settings and primary schools in England (Official report, columns 1319 and 1320). Today the review's final report has been published and I have written to Sir Peter Williams to confirm that we will implement the recommendations the review panel has made.
	The review, over the course of almost a year, has explored the important areas of: effective pedagogy of mathematics teaching; the range of provision required for pupils of all ability levels; the Every Child Counts programme—announced by the Prime Minister in May 2007; the conceptual and subject knowledge which should be expected of primary school teachers and early years practitioners; the most effective sequencing and design of the mathematics curriculum; and how parents should be helped to support young children's mathematical development.
	All children should receive the quality of mathematical teaching during their primary school years that ensures they reach their potential and have the opportunity to enjoy mathematics. We must build on the progress made since the introduction of the national numeracy strategy in 1998 and ensure that we address the problem set out in the report that it is culturally acceptable to admit to being poor at mathematics. Raising the profile of mathematics and attainment in all schools will begin to do this. I believe we will achieve this through implementing the key recommendations as follows:
	there should be at least one mathematics specialist in each primary school, in post within 10 years, with deep subject and pedagogical knowledge, making appropriate arrangements for small and rural schools. Implementation should commence in 2009 and be targeted initially to maximise impact on standards and to narrow attainment gaps. We are investing £24 million in this over the next three years;
	local authorities should upskill their field force of mathematics consultants; and
	Every Child Counts should take place in Year 2 and generally be taught by a qualified teacher and involve one child.
	I am placing in the Library a copy of the final report and also the letter I sent to Sir Peter Williams confirming that we will be implementing all recommendations.

ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Flood Management Responsibilities

Hilary Benn: The Prime Minister announced on 14 May in the draft legislative programme that the Government intend to publish a draft Floods and Water Bill for consultation in 2009. The provisions of the Bill are currently being scoped, and will need to reflect the recommendations in Sir Michael Pitt's final report on last summer's floods, but I wish to inform the House that it is the Government's intention that the draft Bill will:
	streamline current flood and coastal erosion risk management legislation, including the interrelationship of roles and responsibilities between the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards. In line with the Government's strategy "Making Space for Water", I can confirm that the Environment Agency will take on a new strategic overview role for flood risk management in England from whatever source;
	revise existing legislation which talks in terms of 'defence' from flooding, to provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing all flooding risks. A new Floods Bill will allow us to reflect all types of flooding, including surface water flooding and coastal erosion. We are preparing the draft Bill on the basis that local authorities will be given the responsibility for surface water flooding, under the Environment Agency's overview. In particular, local authorities will have lead responsibility for surface water management plans;
	review reservoir safety legislation which dates from the 1930s, to reflect current risk-based approaches, new threats, and the ageing nature of reservoirs in this country; and
	explore the potential for reducing administrative burdens by addressing the complex legal instruments that DEFRA has to use under current legislation.
	These steps are consistent with Sir Michael Pitt's interim report which recommended that flooding legislation should be updated and streamlined under a single unifying Act of Parliament.
	The current timetable is for a consultation draft of the Bill to be published in Spring 2009, with the Bill being available for introduction in a later parliamentary Session.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Meg Hillier: The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held in Luxembourg on 5 and 6 June 2008. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice; my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General; the Scottish Solicitor-General, Frank Mulholland, and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following issues were discussed:
	The Commission gave an update on the revised timetable for delivery of the second generation of the Schengen Information System (SIS II). Member states reaffirmed their commitment to the project but stressed the importance of the Commission delivering on time.
	The Council Secretariat reported some minor delays in the implementation of the SIS Communication Network and stated that better preparation from Member states would ensure that there were no further delays.
	The Council agreed a compromise text on the Returns Directive, which could enable a first reading agreement providing it is approved by the European Parliament later this month. The UK has not opted in to this directive.
	Discussion continued on the directive for Beneficiaries of International Protection. Member states could not reach consensus on the scope of the directive and the qualifying period for long-term residence. The presidency concluded that there would be no further attempts to secure agreement under the Slovenian presidency.
	The Commission supported calls for EU action to resettle refugees from Iraq in principle, although they wanted United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) involvement as they were concerned about resettling people directly from Iraqi territory. The UK noted its own efforts in this area and supported the involvement of more Member states in resettlement, but stated it must be a permanent solution, not just a temporary humanitarian evacuation. The incoming French presidency said that it would consider pursuing further EU resettlement activity.
	The Council reached a general approach on the package of Prüm-related legal instruments, which provide an improved mechanism for the sharing of DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data for the purposes of preventing, investigating and prosecuting serious crime. The Commission underlined its support.
	The EU Counter Terrorism Co-ordinator introduced his reports on the implementation of the EU counter-terrorism strategy and action plan, emphasising the importance of technical assistance to third countries and of information exchange. He stated that radicalisation and recruitment was the main priority in the next six months and urged the Commission to issue its communication on this subject as quickly as possible. The Commission confirmed that it would do so. Member states welcomed the work of the co-ordinator and supported his recommendations. The UK particularly welcomed the focus on radicalisation and recruitment and prioritisation of work with Sahel/North Africa and Pakistan. The UK had launched its national strategy on Prevent the previous week, and would share its experience in leading the workstream on communications. The presidency noted that the new ad hoc Council group on information exchange would contribute to work on counter-terrorism.
	The Council endorsed the EU-Australia passenger name record agreement and the Commission remarked that the Australian PNR agreement should be a reference point for future PNR agreements.
	The presidency reported on the successful outcome of negotiations with the European Parliament about the proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
	The presidency outlined the background to the proposal to amend the Ship Source Pollution Directive to include criminal penalties for breaches of the rules.
	The Council reached a general approach on the framework decision on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia. Many delegations intervened fully to support the compromise agreement. The Commission stressed that the instrument must come into effect without delay and called on Member states to lift parliamentary reservations as quickly as possible. They noted that Parliament's opinion was still due and that the form must be finalised by Justice and Home Affairs counsellors. The UK and other delegations warmly congratulated the presidency on their work on this initiative.
	The UK welcomed the progress made on the draft Eurojust Council decision and supported the overall package proposed on Articles 5a, 9a-9g, 12 and 13 concerning: on-call co-ordination within Eurojust; the powers of national members; the establishment of a Eurojust national co-ordination system; and the exchange of information, noting that it struck the right balance. With the exception of one member state, which retained a reserve on article 9, all could accept the compromise text and the presidency therefore concluded that a general approach had been reached. The presidency also concluded that the outstanding reserve could be dealt with in a recital to be discussed at a later date.
	The Council agreed a compromise package on a number of aspects of the proposed maintenance regulation. In particular, to accommodate UK concerns, it was agreed that the applicable law rules should be removed from the regulation and that those Member states that wish to apply such rules will use the optional protocol to the recently agreed Hague convention on maintenance. The UK confirmed that this solution removed the main obstacle to future UK participation in the adopted regulation.
	It has been accepted that it will not be possible to agree Rome III—choice of law in divorce—in its current form as there is no unanimity in the Council. It was agreed that there should be a period of reflection to explore how work in this area can be taken forward. One option that will be considered will be the use of enhanced co-operation.
	The presidency provided a report on the progress that had been made on e-justice and the priorities for future work. This was followed by a presentation from the Commission of a recent communication which sets out a strategy for e-justice work including proposals for how this will be financed.
	The presidency reported on the implementation of the JHA external relations strategy. The Commission said there would be a review of the external strategy under the French presidency. The third report, due out in 2009, would be the basis for a new strategy. The incoming French presidency confirmed that implementation of this strategy would be a priority over the next 18 months. The presidency also reported on the EU-Russia JHA ministerial troika and EU-Ukraine ministerial troika.
	Greece outlined the challenges posed by high levels of asylum applications and illegal immigration. They welcomed EU financial assistance but would prefer increased burden sharing. Priorities also included more work in countries of origin; information on legal migration opportunities; and more work on readmission agreements. Some member states offered practical assistance, but emphasised the need to uphold the integrity of the Dublin system and opposed any form of intra-EU resettlement. Further discussion on migration challenges at the EU border states will take place under the French presidency.
	The Rome I regulation on choice of law in contracts was formally adopted without discussion. The UK did not opt in to this proposal, but the Government are consulting with a view to accepting the measure post-adoption.
	Over lunch there was a discussion of the proposal for an EU PNR agreement, with the presidency seeking views on what member states would wish to achieve under the incoming French presidency. All agreed that adoption of the measure would not be possible this year, leaving the possibility that it would have to happen under the Lisbon treaty if that were to enter into force in 2009. The UK urged progress during the French presidency. The Commission wanted to press ahead with discussion at both a technical level as well as politically.
	Member states also congratulated the presidency on the work of the interior future group, considering ideas for inclusion in the new JHA work programme when the current programme expires at the end of 2009. Migration was stressed by many as the top priority for future work in JHA.

JUSTICE

Bail and Murder

Jack Straw: In January this year, a man killed his mother-in-law before taking his own life. At the time, he was on bail awaiting trial for the alleged murder of his wife. On 16 January 2008 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, answering a question about the case (Official Report, Col. 925), said that the Government would be looking at the law on bail.
	Bail decisions in murder cases will never be easy; the vital thing is to ensure that the courts strike the right balance between respecting individuals' rights to liberty and protecting the public. The Government's aim is to target custody as precisely as possible upon those cases where there is a risk of harm to the public. We are today publishing a consultation paper that sets out possible ways of helping the courts to achieve that aim. We shall take account of views expressed in response to it in deciding whether to pursue these ideas. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. Copies are also available on the internet at http:// www.justice.gov.uk/publications/consultations.htm.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that "if any changes in the law are necessary, we will make them". The Government do not take it for granted that it will be necessary to amend legislation, but we shall not hesitate to bring forward whatever changes in guidance, rules or the law that may be needed.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

Baker Report

Harriet Harman: On 16 January 2008, in publishing the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) report "Review of Parliamentary Pay, Pensions and Allowances 2007" (Cm 7270), I announced in a written ministerial statement (Col. 32WS) that the Government would "examine options that find objective criteria for determining the appropriate comparator used for MPs' pay awards within a framework that does not require MPs to vote in future years, and accordingly have asked Sir John Baker, CBE—the retiring chair of SSRB—to conduct a review and make proposals on options for consideration".
	On 23 January 2008, I set out in a written ministerial statement (column 56WS) the terms of reference of the Sir John Baker review, which were as follows:
	Review of the mechanism for determining the pay and pensions for Members of Parliament
	to examine options and make recommendations for a mechanism for independently determining the pay and pensions of Members of Parliament which does not involve MPs voting on their own pay; the appropriate comparator; and the frequency with which reviews of the use of the comparator take place;
	to ensure that the independent mechanism takes account of the Government's policy on public sector pay and its target for inflation; and
	to have regard to the need for any independent mechanism to maintain the support and trust of the public and Members of Parliament.
	The review should seek to:
	examine comparable international mechanisms and the resulting experience;
	address the constitutional framework alongside legal and legislative considerations;
	consider the range of evidence that should be considered by the recommended independent mechanism in determining an appropriate comparator;
	consider the membership and remit of any independent body that may be part of the pay setting process;
	give due consideration to consistency with other public service wage setting mechanisms and wage settlements across the public service; and
	outline a recommended timetable for transition to any new system.
	On 24 January 2008, in the debate on the Senior Salaries Review Body report (Cm 7270), the House of Commons:
	endorsed the proposal that Sir John Baker should be invited to make recommendations on both the comparator and mechanism for setting MPs' pay;
	agreed that the system for determining the salaries of Members of Parliament should be reviewed, in particular with a view to removing the need for final decisions on salaries to be subject to approval by the House of Commons; and
	agreed that particular recommendations on allowances in the SSRB report "be referred to the Members Estimate Committee for further consideration following consultation with the Advisory Panel on Members Allowances".
	I am today publishing the report from Sir John Baker CBE on "Review of Parliamentary Pay and Pensions" (Cm 7146). It makes recommendations about the current pay of MPs and the mechanisms for future uprating. Copies are available in the Vote Office. I am grateful to Sir John Baker for his work.
	To support the publication of this report, the Government are also publishing their memorandum (Cm 7418) which was sent to Sir John to form part of his review on 20 May 2008.
	The Government have considered Sir John's report and will table motions in advance of the debate on 3 July which will enable the House to vote on resolutions to express and implement their views.
	The Government accept Sir John's recommendation that the SSRB should remain the independent body which conducts reviews of MPs' pay, that these reviews should occur once in each Parliament and that the outcome of these reviews should be implemented without the need for further debates or votes in the House.
	The debate comes at a time when it is vital for economic stability that there is a disciplined, responsible approach to pay in both the private and the public sector to hold down inflationary pressures. It is important that senior figures in the public and private sector lead by example in taking a disciplined and restrained approach to pay.
	The Government do not accept Sir John's recommendation that MPs' salaries should be increased by £650 a year for the next three years. MPs should set the example at a time of public sector pay restraint. The Government will also not be supporting a link between MPs' salaries and the three-month average public sector average earnings index. Instead, the Government propose, in line with an alternative proposal provided by Sir John Baker, that MPs should receive the median average of the settlements of a wide basket of public sector workforces.
	The motions tabled will offer the House the opportunity to vote to support either the Government's proposal or the options put forward by Sir John.
	In addition, the SSRB report also recognised that "if it becomes likely that, unless action is taken, the Exchequer contribution to the cost of accrual of benefits for MPs in service in the parliamentary contributory pension fund—excluding payments to amortise the accumulated deficit identified in the 2005 valuation of the Fund—would rise above 20 per cent. of payroll, that there should be a major review of the fund"(recommendation 9).
	The Government Actuary's Department has now advised that it anticipates that the cost of accruing benefits would indeed rise above 20 per cent. of payroll. This has effectively triggered the need for the major review recommended by the SSRB, and I will therefore be asking the SSRB to undertake such a review, supported by a panel of people with relevant expertise.
	Given that the review will need to consider, amongst other things, the findings of the Government Actuary's valuation of the PCPF which is to be completed in March 2009, the SSRB would not be expected to report before Spring next year.

PRIME MINISTER

Review Body on Senior Salaries

Gordon Brown: The 30th report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries is being published today. This makes recommendations about the pay of the senior civil service (SCS), senior military personnel, the judiciary and very senior NHS managers. Copies have been laid in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I am grateful to the Chairman and members of the Review Body for their work.
	The Government have decided to accept all of the main recommendations of the Review Body as they are affordable and consistent with public sector pay policy. They will be implemented with effect from 1 April 2008. The cost of the awards will be met from within existing Departmental Expenditure Limits.
	Senior Civil Service
	For the SCS, the Review Body has recommended that for the three-year period 2008-2011 there should be an indicative envelope of 7 per cent. pay bill available for normal base pay increases and additions to the pot for non-consolidated bonuses. This multi-year pay arrangement will provide certainty and stability for Departments and the workforce. The Government have decided to accept the recommended 7 per cent. envelope, but believes that the appropriate metric is pay bill per head rather than pay bill. This ensures that in the event of any changes in workforce size individual pay awards remain consistent with public sector pay policy. The envelope for SCS pay increases and bonuses over the next three years will therefore be 7 per cent. of pay bill per head.
	For 2008-09, the Review Body has recommended a headline award of 1.5 per cent. and a 1 per cent. increase to the size of the bonus pot.
	The Review Body has recommended that progression target rates for pay bands 1 and 1A should be retained. The Government have decided to replace them with 'reference points', which will serve a similar purpose but no longer have any limiting point on pay increases for serving staff.
	Senior Military Personnel
	The main recommendations of the Review Body on senior military pay are:
	an increase of 2.2 per cent. in the base pay for senior military officers;
	that 2- and 3-star officers (Major Generals and Lieutenant Generals, and equivalents) receive an element of the X-factor—a supplement to base pay in recognition of the differences between military and civilian life—to be phased in over three years commencing 1 April 08;
	that the pay scales are restructured over the course of the next three years in order to give 1-star officers (Brigadiers and equivalents) a 10 per cent. minimum pay increase on promotion to 2-star.
	Judiciary
	The Review Body's main recommendation for the judiciary is an increase averaging slightly over 2.5 per cent. for almost all judicial salaries.
	Very Senior NHS Managers
	The Review Body considered the pay of very senior NHS managers for the first time this year. It has recommended a 2.2 per cent. increase in the pay of these managers from 1 April 2008.
	Members of Parliament and Ministers
	Ministers' pay is automatically linked to the average increase in the midpoint of SCS pay, which moves in line with SSRB recommendations. However, given the importance of public sector pay restraint at a time of economic uncertainty Ministers will not be accepting any pay rise in 2008-09.
	There is no longer a link between the SSRB's recommendations and the pay of Members of Parliament as there has been in previous years. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons is making a statement today on the report into parliamentary pay and allowances, conducted by Sir John Baker, CBE.
	Conclusion
	The Government have accepted the main recommendations of the SSRB. The three-year pay award for the senior civil service will help to deliver economic stability and brings the total of public servants covered by these three-year deals to over 1.5 million.